None of his neighboring countries were worried about him anymore. He was a spent force, but a handy scapegoat for the imperialist aggressors to use to try to mask their imperial aggression. Seems to have worked pretty well too on all the grown ups who still wait up on Christmans Eve to see if they can catch a peek of Santa. Of course, Santa Bush ain't gonna bring you nothin' because all those fabulous war time profits will go to the folks who put him in office. No, I don't mean your typical brain dead Republican voter either.

Kuwati was in 1995. Saddam or his sons would rearm if he went free . He would probably kill off the Kurds.

But I tell you what RSR you just tell the Bathists, those who support Bin Laden and those who luv Khomeni to give up their war. Then everything will be cool.

So basically, the U.S. decided that there were a bunch of places it didn't like, so it chose to begin freedom's march in Iraq because it was the weakest and Saddam "deserved it". How very brave. There are many, many individuals in the world who deserve to go to jail or be executed, but it takes a big heart to blow the crap out of an entire country to make sure it gets done. Must have taken every ounce of your "moral strength" to pull that one off.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Yep hate from the mid east makes terrorists.

Know what else can turn someone into a terrorist? Getting your family, your friends, your house, your car, your place of work, your dog, and your finest patio furniture blown to shit by missiles launched from the middle of the desert hundreds of miles away and bombs dropped from planes that are worth more money than your entire town. And just to add insult to injury, you're forced to crap in the street because your indoor plumming went away with your house. So then you figure that if you're going to be crapping in the street, you may as well shoot at the people who blew up your patio furniture while you're at it.

I'm just saying that situations like that may be partly the cause of so much hate.

Know what else can turn someone into a terrorist? Getting your family, your friends, your house, your car, your place of work, your dog, and your finest patio furniture blown to *beep* by missiles launched from the middle of the desert hundreds of miles away and bombs dropped from planes that are worth more money than your entire town. And just to add insult to injury, you're forced to crap in the street because your indoor plumming went away with your house. So then you figure that if you're going to be crapping in the street, you may as well shoot at the people who blew up your patio furniture while you're at it.

I'm just saying that situations like that may be partly the cause of so much hate.

So basically, the U.S. decided that there were a bunch of places it didn't like, so it chose to begin freedom's march in Iraq because it was the weakest and Saddam "deserved it". How very brave. There are many, many individuals in the world who deserve to go to jail or be executed, but it takes a big heart to blow the crap out of an entire country to make sure it gets done. Must have taken every ounce of your "moral strength" to pull that one off.

The US was willing to tolerate that stuff until 9-11. 9-11 showed that something needed to be done.

Saddam wouldn't give up his war. and Saddam is worse than just about anyone. Saddam is one of the great killers in the history of the world - as bad or worse than Idi Amin.

Quote:

Know what else can turn someone into a terrorist? Getting your family, your friends, your house, your car, your place of work, your dog, and your finest patio furniture blown to *beep* by missiles launched from the middle of the desert hundreds of miles away and bombs dropped from planes that are worth more money than your entire town. And just to add insult to injury, you're forced to crap in the street because your indoor plumming went away with your house. So then you figure that if you're going to be crapping in the street, you may as well shoot at the people who blew up your patio furniture while you're at it.

that is right but most of it is just cause mid east regimes, elites , clerics and the media there teach hate.

funny the mideast street wasn't up in arms when Saddam gassed muslim Kurds or when Khomeni killed 30,000 political prisioners in the year 1989 alone. They didn't get mad when Haffaz Assad destroyed the city of Hama in 1982. When the Taliban killed muslims of the Northern Alliance who in the mid east got angry?

Of course heaven forbid you are a minority in the mideast.

You do know that 70,000 trained in Al Qaida camps in Afghanistan during the 1990s. This was while the US was protecting Muslim Kurds from Saddam , and while the US was protecting muslims in Kosovo from Slobidan. This was also while the US was trying to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together.

Quote:

I'm just saying that situations like that may be partly the cause of so much hate.

you are right there but the major cause is something different.

They got to stop.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon May 30, 2005 10:57 pm; edited 3 times in total

Saddam's Iraq was a horrible police state and a whacked out society because of Saddam's personality cult. There was no chance of any regime change by Iraqis.

Iran has a pro US population. It could get better by itself. I think if the US can wait for Ali Khamani to die then things could get a lot better.

Quote:

May 19, 2004
The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

There is one force that could rescue Iran's hard-line ayatollahs from the dustbin of history: us.

For all its denials, Iran seems to be pushing for nuclear warheads and for missiles to carry them. It could make its first weapon in two years, and it could eventually produce enough enriched uranium at Natanz for 25 weapons a year.

Iran's leaders have regularly gotten away with murder. They apparently helped bomb U.S. marines in Lebanon in 1983, a Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 and U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996. So it's easy to understand why President Bush declared recently that it's "intolerable" for Iran to be on the road toward nuclear weapons, adding, "Otherwise they will be dealt with, starting through the United Nations."

To Mr. Bush, not unreasonably, Iran conjures up a frightening combination: nuts with nukes. The push for a tougher approach toward Iran isn't partisan, and a President Kerry might also pursue a more confrontational, albeit more multilateral, approach to Iran.

But that would be a mistake.

First, it won't work. If we haul Iran before the Security Council, it will restart its programs (it has suspended at least some) and kick out inspectors. Iran will respond to more pressure not by dropping its nuclear program, but by accelerating it.

Second, we'll create a nationalistic backlash in Iran that will keep hard-liners in power indefinitely. Our sanctions and isolation have kept dinosaurs in power in Cuba, North Korea and Burma, and my fear is that we'll do the same in Iran.

What I fear is this: Over the next year or two, the West will press Iran harder, Iran will halt its nuclear cooperation and evict inspectors, Israel will bomb a couple of Iran's nuclear sites (a possibility widely discussed in security circles, although it would slow Iran's nuclear progress without ending it), and Iran's ayatollahs will benefit from a nationalistic surge to stay in power and rule more rabidly than ever.

"We love America," began Mansour Jahanbakhsa, a businessman, in a typical comment, but he added that Iran should develop nuclear weapons. "Iranians would become angry at meddling by America," he said, and his demeanor changed. "We are an old country with an ancient civilization, and we are proud of it. How come Israel can have them and we can't? It makes me angry."

A young woman, Maryan Nazeri, complained about the regime but said she would support it in a confrontation over nuclear weapons. "We're going to have them," she said. "Maybe we do already. It's our right. We're Iranians, so what do you expect? Just as you want America to be strong, we want Iran to be strong."

Then Massoud Taheri scolded: "Your president calling us a rogue nation and disrespecting our 5,000 years of civilization is offensive. How many years of civilization do you have?"

Our goal should be regime change in Tehran. But if Mr. Bush (or Mr. Kerry) pushes Tehran too hard over nukes, we'll fail to get rid of either the nuclear program or this regime.

The only alternative is engagement — the precise opposite of the sanctions and isolation that have been U.S. policy under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. Sanctions are even less effective against Iran than against, say, North Korea, because Iran oozes petroleum and is independently wealthy. Isolation by the U.S. has accomplished even less in Iran than it has in Cuba.

So we should vigorously pursue a "grand bargain" in which, among other elements, Iran maintains its freeze on uranium enrichment and we establish diplomatic relations and encourage business investment, tourism and education exchanges.

"What would destroy the conservatives [in Iran] would be a money flood" of American investment, says Hooshang Amirahmadi, the president of the American Iranian Council. "In just a few years, the conservatives would be finished."

The bottom line is that we could soon have a pro-American Islamic democracy as a beacon for hope in the Middle East — in Tehran, not Baghdad. The risk is that we'll blow it.

The draft board is alive and well and registerig new members right now.

Hey einstein, all American males age 18 and over have been required to register with Selective Service for many, many (25+?) years now. Nice try to make it sound so sinister though.

Yes, Einstein was a good film wasn't it.

It is then as I queried - is this normal. Thanks for the ray of light. How did it appear sinister to you? Seems like a simple statement: as you say, the draft board has been registering for 25 plus years and I said it is taking registrations now.